The Crusader
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1907 |
| Date | 15 March 1907 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Lord Alverstone, C.J., Moulton and Kennedy, L.JJ., and Nautical Assessors
The Crusader
The RenporDID=ASPM 48 L. T. Rep. 887 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 98 8 P. Div. 115
Salvage Services by ship's agent Agreement between master and ship's agents
Judgment of Sir Gorell Barnes, P. ( 96 L. T. Rep. 126; 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 353; (1907) P. 15) affirmed.
442 MARITIME LAW CASES. Ct. of App.] The Crusader. [Ct. of App. Friday, March 15, 1907. (Before Lord Alvebstonb, 0.3., Moulton and Kennedy, L.JJ, and Nautical Assessors.) The CRUSADER. (a) Salvage-Services by ship's agents-Agreement between, taster and ship's agents-Duty of ship's agent-Effect on agreement made with master. C, Y., and Co. acted as ship's agents at Colombo for a steamship. A few days after she had left Colombo, her mate returned there and presented a letter to C, Y., and Go. from her master, stating that she was ashore on the Maldive Islands, asking for a powerful tug, and saying that a salvage boat would be of assistance if procured on a "no cure, no pay, basis. The letter also directed C, Y., and Co. to draw on his owners for their disbursements. C, Y., and Co. chartered a twin screw tug belonging to the Government, at the rate of 601. a day, and gave an undertaking to return her in safety, and keep her insured for 15,000l. C, Y., and Co. also sent a cable to the owners of the steamship: " Your interests have our attention." The tug left Colombo with a clerk of C., Y., and Co. on board. On arriving at the steamship, the master refused to use the tug, except on the basis of " no cure, no pay," and agreed with C, Y., and Co.'s clerk to pay that form 4000l. if they succeeded in floating the steamer, and saw her safely into port if required, " no cure, no (a) Reported by L. F. 0. Darby, Esq, Barrister-at-law MARITIME LAW CASES. 443 Ct. of App.] The Crusader. [Ct. of App. pay," The tug got the steamship off and C, Y., and Co. called the owner that the steamship was salved, and that a salvage agreement had been made for 40001. At that time, although the owner of the steamship knew the terms on which C, T., and Co. had engaged the tug, they had not expressly assented to them. On hearing of the salvage agreement for 4000l. the steamship owners repudiated it, and said they were ready to pay C, Y., and Co. their disbursements and a reasonable commission. C, T., and Go. brought a salvage suit against the owners of the steamship, her cargo, and freight to recover 40001. or such sum as should be just The action was dismissed , and they appealed. Held (affirming the decision of the court below), that it was not reasonable for the master to enter into the agreement he did, as the ship's agents had already made an agreement with the owners of the steamship, and, the circumstance not having altered, there was no such absence of reasonable alternative as to necessitate him entering into such an agreement. Judgment of Sir Gorell Barnes, P. (96 L. T. Sep. 126; 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 353; (1907) P. 15) affirmed. Appeal by Clarke, Young, and Co. against a decision of Sir Gorell Barnes, President, dismissing an action for salvage brought by Clarke, Young, and Co. against the owners of the steamship Crusader, her cargo, and freight. The claim arose out of services rendered to the Crusader when ashore on Gofar Island, in the Maldives, on the 19th and 20th Aug. 1905. The facts and correspondence between the parties are fully set out in the report of the case below, The Crusader (ubi sup.). The following is a summary of them:- Clarke, Young, and Co., the plaintiffs in the action, had coaled the Crusader and done the ship's business when she was at Colombo. After leaving Colombo the Crusader was making to Port Said for orders, when on the 7th Aug. 1905 she went ashore on Gofar Island, in the Maldives. Attempts were made to get her off, but they failed, and on the 9th Aug. the mate was sent in a junk to Colombo to get a tug. On the 15th Aug. he presented a letter from the master to Clarke, Young, and Co. asking for a tug to be sent to work on a no cure, no pay, basis, and directing them to draw on his owners for their disbursements. Clarke, Young, and Co. then cabled the owners that the owners interests had their attention, and that they were sending a tug. The Goliath, belonging to the Ceylon Government, was cent by Clarke, Young, and Co. on the 15th Aug., and arrived at the Crusader on the 19th Aug. The Goliath bad been hired at the rate of 601. a day, and Clarke, Young, and Co. gave an undertaking to insure her and return her safely. These terms were made known to the owners of the Crusader by letter, in which the plaintiffs stated that agency fee-i.e., commissions on disbursements-was not included in the charges stated in it. When the tog with a representative of Clarke, Young, and Co. on board arrived at the Crusader the master refused to employ it except on a no cars, no pay, basis, although he had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial